As annoying as it is it’s completely realistic and should be in the game. You can often prevent it by garrisoning vils and shooting the scout, or at least force the scout to trade HP for it. You can always build a little pen with palisades around your sheep, I sometimes do that on maps with lots of herdables.
Also people complaining why you can’t kill deer with scouts and saying it’s logically inconsistent, it actually makes sense. A deer is a wild animal, go out in the wild on a big horse and run towards some wildlife while swinging a big scary sword next time you get a chance. Guess what they will do, they’ll run for their lives. Sheep on the other hand are domesticated animals, hence why they are “herdable” and why you can walk up to them and kill them. I think it is accurate that scouts can’t Kill deer but can kill sheep.
I agree that killing sheep has risk involved, but the real unbalance part is your own scout can’t kill your own sheep. That’s make the risk unbearable, because if you find your oppenont’s sheep first and your scout is killed, which is a high propability, this is the risk not too many people would like to take. So banning scout killing any sheep, or allowing scout killing your own sheep are both acceptable by me.
1 Like
In addition to that, could we also make it so scouts/military killing a sheep, deer, etc. takes away 25% or 50% of the food that the animal would normally have? Then we’d have a deal 
This happened to me today, and I lost 6 sheep 
.
What are you supposed to do if this happens to you. I just ended up rage quitting after losing a vil to a boar.
1 Like
Learn from it and try not to let it happen again. Contemplate doing the same to your foe. Don’t let boar kill your villagers. Gather berries. Fish. Find other ways to come back. Don’t rage quit. Take a deep breath. Let your opponent reap the benefits of their tactics, or suffer the consequences of spending time on that rather than other gameplay elements. Just some ideas
Hope Age II:DE’s multiplayer algorithm punishes harshly premature and rage quits; whether it be significant hits to one’s ranking, or suspensions, or, preferably, both. Poor sportsmanship in multiplayer matches isn’t productive and only encourages others to do the same. A spiral of negativity not needed in AoE matches
I know from experience. I quit once when I got relentlessly attacked early in Dark Age. I felt obliged to do so because someone rage quit on me the preceding game when I advanced to the Feudal or Castle age apparently a lot quicker than they felt comfortable with, lol
Absolutely nothing wrong with quitting bro. You shouldn’t feel forced to play any match you don’t want to. Especially in that case where the odds would’ve been hugely stacked against you with 600 food down and 1 vil.
2 Likes
If everyone thinks seeing someone bail at the first sign of trouble is fun, why do some game devs punish that behavior?
It’s all just personal opinions, but wouldn’t it be like someone always resigning right away after losing 3 pawns, a knight, or queen early in chess? Or after losing 3 more checkers pieces than opponemt?
Okay… how about would you maybe be more okay with the person who caused the other person to want to bail early due to their amazing play getting a considerable.boost to their ELO, and other rewards eventually, like elite profile icons and level-up pins? Seems like if they have a habit of causing the opponent to quit early, that should be indicative of strong gameplay worth something.
One should probably get rewarded for their elite play and the other slightly punished for not letting the other person enjoy the fruits of their labor very much.
PS, is hard to be an elitist when I rarely play multiplayer and when I do, I lose as many as I win. I like letting people at least destroy much or all of my town or empire before quitting, so they have some satisfaction from all their hard work. I honestly assumed that was common courtesy… But if it’s not what people want, then I can quit early too and save them time so they can get on to the next match, if that’s the common multiplayer consensus
Just let the sheep having rotting food, as if killed by a villager. At least you can recover some food in this way
2 Likes
I’m of the opinion that this should remain a part of the game. It’s part of the value you can get from your starting scout. The people who are able to execute this are players who actually pay attention to their scout, something that should be rewarded. Just think how much value pro-players get out of their starting scout, this is another aspect of the game that a player can improve in and set themselves apart in.
Early aggression should be part of the game, and players should be doing everything they can to win. It’s a war game, we dont start with 30 minute treaties so everyone can play sim farm.
1 Like
Well, it’s a bit offtopic, but in chess it is considered to be very rude to play on, if you lose a lot of material without compensation. It is just wasting everyone’s time.
In AoE, it might be the same, at least in ranked game. They didn’t introduce the 105 taunt without reason… If I want to play competetively, it would be only annoying for me to invest 10 additional minutes destroying the enemy’s complete base, when there is no chance of a comeback.
4 Likes
No one should be compelled to play on beyond when they feel they can win, on the other hand they shouldn’t be forced to quit if they feel they still have a chance.
Hiding villagers around the map is another issue though, where I think 105 is appropriate.
4 Likes
It is off topic but I imagine this is primarily for the ai, like the 104 taunt and maybe the 50 or so taunts before it, like build a wall between the x’d locations and delete buildings, and build a navy and so on. It’s fun to use when talking to people you know as a joke, or maybe it’s reasonable if you’ve gotten a game against a stronger player and they were going to give you advice on your gameplay etc, and they want to point out when it’s probably reasonable to resign or can’t come back from etc.
I don’t think it should be encouraged to use it to force players to resign early, and I doubt the devs would encourage that either.
1 Like
I didn’t notice that the AI reacts to 105. Thanks for the info!
And I totally agree that it shouldn’t be used in competetive play too much, as it is not very respectful. Just as playing on forever is…
1 Like
I didn’t actually think about it before but even the wording of the 105 taunt makes more sense if you imagine using it to communicate with the ai.
If you tell the ai “104: Don’t resign!” then it should let you destroy buildings and things and not usually resign on it’s normal conditions, I don’t know if that’s score or military counts etc. Then if you tell it “105: You can resign again.” you’re giving it back the ability to resign, as in it can resign again when it wants to/conditions are met. [I mean confirmation of that from promi or someone would be good, but it makes sense to me :)]
1 Like